tv U.S.- North Korea Talks CSPAN May 9, 2018 12:00am-2:18am EDT
so what type of construction is used on certain poles the ability for the system to disconnect itself and re- aggregated, things like that are not components that will be impacted. there was simply defined all things like standard pull size, i know one thing we struggled with going through the emergency restoration component was how we didn't match up in the mainland so that when those crews moved from the mainland to puerto rico or other areas they can bring their own stock with them and replace it. they cannot do that because the voltage standards.
those are things when you look at resiliency, there's many proponents that go into it. a lot of it is design capabilities, to have a standard utilized by their company. this and be in step with moving towards resiliency. it's 3500 square miles and there's lots of infrastructure. it will take time to transition through those components. we are working closely and there are opportunities for design and micro grids to expand the capabilities of the system so the materials whether there and
the poor are just transferring over to you to these materials meet what you only to match up with these national standards? >> yes, we will have to get new equipment to replace that. the things brought back in her adequate top rate until we make changes in the future. if a voltage is at a certain level first structure, you can use any other piece of equipment.
you must use one adequate for the voltage. many things will need to do will require different equipment to be installed. resilience is about not just design, but design philosophy and operating philosophy. many things need to be done. >> so the stuff you're receiving you'll be able to use it. >> it will take years for the system to be completely rebuilt. >> i hate it when i'm asked a question, give yourself a great on your performance. smutmuch easier to be the teachr and give you the gray but this is national teacher week. i'm going to ask you each to give yourself a great on how you feel the rebuild in response seven months after with regards to the disaster in puerto rico. i will make it easier and suggest and not be a letter grade, but let's go back to
elementary school when you're given it ou o for outstanding, d as for satisfactory and i for needs improvement. >> or no for outstanding. >> hopeless. >> mr. alexander, incomplete. our goal is 100%. >> there has been a lot of test, i think we have faced a couple and past others. and there is room for improvement in some of those. at the end of the day the overall test of rebuilding is incomplete. but it is a process.
>> mr. higgins. >> you did not say work in progress was the choice. >> needs improvement, incomplete. >> i think preppa's response has gotten better. a fairly new so i can't take credit. i met the needs improvement stage because we have a lot to do. preppa has learned a great deal about itself and responsibilities. i would say beginning to get almost satisfactory. it will not be satisfactory until every customers back in service. >> needs improvement. i feel we have wasted two years, the commission was created in 2014. we did a lot to get prepa up to standard. definitely the hurricanes have affected the performance of prepa.
we were in the process of establishing the metrics. now, here kpis are being thrown around but i feel we have wasted too much time. we are still incomplete there still needs a lot of improveme improvement. >> before this a very good job. in their right, the omissions contribute heavily. after maria, there is a lot of improvement to be done to complete this job. thank you. >> thank you, all.
i would agree with what many of you have said that this is still a work in progress. for the people on the ground is clearly a work in progress. we worry that the progress has not been fast enough. it is unnerving to think that we have the hurricane season that will once again be upon us. there is a vulnerability to the people in puerto rico, and the area. but her focus today some puerto rico and how we're doing and our response. i appreciate the fact that we recognize that we have more to do in various capacities and i
appreciate the work that has gone into the response. it has been very complicated. it was extraordinarily devastating to be hit by two hurricanes to be laid flat in many areas by the winds that came through. fortunately, we do not see the level of devastation in these populated areas very often. getting the level of coordination that needed to come together was imperative. having been on the ground were working with agencies and volunteers that really did try to gear up and team up as quickly as possible, it is
recognize that it was a considerable challenge. here doing so in an area with a system that is troubled. a host of issues that have led to a second hearing within a six-month time following the disaster. know that we will continue as a committee to be vigilant and following this to ensure resources necessary, the coordination required will continue. i do hope that we don't take the eye off of the ball until this is done. i fear after every disasters that the news is their first
cycle, the relief efforts are there for a limited time and then we move off to the next disaster an issue in the people who remain vulnerable feel forgotten. we will not forget the people of puerto rico. we will stay on this, and we need your leadership to do that. thank you for the time you have given. i know other colleagues will be submitting additional questions for the records. hopefully you can be responsive as we continue to help in this important area. thank you for what you do. we stand adjourned. [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation]
>> coming up on wednesday, live on c-span networks, at 10:00 a.m. the houses and for morning speeches. later, they take up a bill requiring antitrust cases. at 10:00 a.m. on c-span two the senate continues the consideration of the kirk englehart nomination. on c-span three at 9:30 a.m., the confirmation hearing for gina hospital. -- >> you can imagine that there to marry ca couples.
when they set up these two separate about a mile from each other and they stuck to a rigid schedule. and they would live in -- house for three days with his wife. during the three days is the master of the house, he can do whatever he wants to. and the other will give up his free will. and then a few days later they move on to the others house and he will become the master and chang will give up his free will. >> did it work? >> apparently, they have 21 children.
>> next, a debate on whether or not negotiations with north korea can lead to denuclearization. this is part of the series hosted by the new yorker. it is just over two hours. [applause] >> good evening. i know because i visited the lobby that some of your fans including this gentleman who have been tour events in new york. for those who are new, i want to share some things about what we're doing our delight in being a partnership with the georgetown woman's form. this first-ever partnership in the very first night. it's a pleasure to be in the partnership are this was founded 11 years ago. we have 1150 debates. we want to raise the level of
public discourse to show that argument is a way to shed light when it is done well. to get it done well the debaters are here with the purpose of trying to persuade you to vote for their side. we'll have you vote no to see where you stand on this motion is to come in off the street. will explain the second boat later. they're trying to appeal to. we ask you to listen to their arguments with an open mind and judge the quality of the argument. her goal is to keep it civil and respectful. how rare is that within the confines of an argument. something we think we do successfully. we do encourage applause for point to hear that you like.
he don't have to sit on your hands and can't express your approval. so, go for if you hear something you like. this debate moves on in many forms including as a podcast and radio show. we want the people to know there were really people in the audience at this night. so it's good for that audience to hear that you are here. thirty years from now you can listen and hear your own applause if you have a particular pattern to your clap, that will be you. with discourage the opposite. we do not like booing and hissing. if you hear point you do not like, i'm okay with a chuckle perhaps or a resigned grow.
but, no booing and hissing. the other thing is in the middle of the debate during the section we call round to i'm asking questions and i will come to you to ask questions. i need the question to be short and tight, i don't want you to debate, want you to formulate a question to get them to debate better on the motion in front of us. that's what they're trying to convince you. if it's repetitive we will pass, so think through how you would asked the question. make it a question. whatever clips are very well? naturally lives at the end of that and that's a question.
we hope you enjoy it and everybody has completed their preliminary vote. if not, the instructions are in your program. we are in a terrific partnership with the georgetown woman's form know want to welcome the vice dean of the law center. [applause] >> the floor is yours. >> it is great to be here. i just learned we have a lot of georgetown connections. i hope many of you are georgetown connections. john's wife teaches at the medical school and his daughter will be in the class of 2022. it's wonderful to be here, just steps away from the capital, from the supreme court, and georgetown law school.
we are right nearby and supportive of the intelligent squares in the work they're doing. for much of the reason john is talking about it, it's number two did he for real debate, respectful debate, and antidote to the political polarization we have in one of the most important issues were facing right now. this is the kind of activity we encourage and that reflects some of the values we have a georgetown law. another connection is william, a vice vice president for programming. we like this and believe in training or students engage in thoughtful critique, debate, collaborations and problem solving.
looking at some of the things that inform georgetown law inspire. were happy to sponsor the event are happy it's happening at the time we are kicking off the women's forum which is the 21st anniversary of the women's forum. [applause] it's wonderful we are doing it with the first all woman debate. [applause] just to continue my theme, were lucky to have bonnie jenkins who will be debating and is a graduate of the law school. [applause] enough of me. i appreciate the opportunity, i look forward to hearing the
debate. >> thank you again. i mentioned we are turning this into a podcast and broadcast, to a degree you will see this been made. there will be times i will say things like i'll be right back and i want to actually go anywhere. i will just keep talking. i'll be saying repeatedly i am john, and you're going to say, i know. that is so we can edit the broadcast into breaks away to other topics. for the atmospherics there will be moments i need your spontaneous applause it would really be great if it could be spontaneous when i go like that. if we could practice one round
for spontaneous applause that was good. we will give the formal program now so for now on your clapping counts for real. way to start that is with a round of spontaneous applause. [applause] >> a nobel peace prize for donald trump, is that what it all could come to? the talks between u.s. and north korea, within a month usi getting north korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions. if there were to happen that would be big-league peace prize stuff. is it even likely? where is the trust?
where's the incentives for each side to come to the table. just diplomacy have a chance given the past, given the personalities, given the stakes. to us it sounds like the makings of a debate. yes or no, negotiations can denuclearize north korea. i am john donvan with a special edition of intelligence squared u.s. we have four debaters will attack this question. first, i want to welcome a journalist and best-selling author in 2011 when undercover north korea, posing as a missionary an english teacher to the sons of the north korean elites. please welcome, suki kim. [applause]
>> hello. i just gave away a little bit of your biography in your standing story. which, i as a journalist went to some of these similarly dangerous, oppressive places but never making anything like the commitment you made for taking the level of risk you took. the fact we are here at the museum which is meant to be a monument for the best of journalism, i congratulate you for what you did. i want to understand where the compelling interest came from. you started visiting north korea in 2002, and you made a trip where you live six months undercover in 2011. where did that compelling interest come from? >> professionally it was obvious
when i went in and joined a pro- north korean organization based in new jersey. i joined them and went in who is kim jong-un's father it was a birthday celebration i went in for. i did a cover feature. i was to write at the end of the great famine that north korea. i was sanded the '90s. it was about one tenth of the population had died. come approximate. you cannot verify the number but that's about how many people died. the north korean population is 25 million. so that was two or 3 million deaths. in 2002 the devastation was in-your-face.
i did not expect it anything. but then the great leaders birthdays in february and it was freezing. i slept with a coat on and in the vip quarter them. there was no heat. beyond that, it was a sense of what the world was. you cannot say anything, there's nothing except a great leader. the thing that is anybody's nightmares in my face. you needed to understand this. what does this were a man, how do i understand it better. also the fact that i am created i was born and raised in south korea. my family was separated by the korean war. so there was a personal interest of understanding what this might be but the professional instin
instinct. it took a decade of five visits to north korea and finally being to move there. >> you said your family was affected who ended up where? >> my family and my mother's brother was taken to north in the korean war. those 1950 and 1953. my father side, his constants were taken, they were all around 17 and 18. his cousins were nursing students. they are useful. such a tragic reality. it's not like they died.
in my brother's case he is taken away and they thought he was coming back. it was so close and suddenly they put a border there that generation to start whoever ended up on the other side will come home next week. >> 's every time there's a knock at the door. >> my grandmother never moved. when he comes home he should just walk home. this is not just one, there county about a million separated family members. so that entire generation, there is a heartbreak that killed us. i believe that for separation is worse than death. because you're wondering what
might've happened and also think there might be a closure, that person will come home. two things that the mothers and sons basically waited and waited, here we are, 70 some years later. >> the disappeared members of your family, you never found out. >> we never found out. >> if they're a live or not. >> there's one letter that came, my father's cousins through japan with these women saying we are okay. sometime in the 70s. because of that, my great aunt was always like cold to north korea about possibly being a spy and should never heard anything since. it's not that unusual. every other family in korea has the story.
when i look at the korean divisions you're wondering what drove me to it. be on the famine it's also realizing someone died this way. here we are three generations later so must be a movie some answers are given. so what if that closure name for came in generation died? without ever meeting again. as a writer, my job was to somehow deliver this reality to the world. we always think about -- and beyond all of the was actually in generation that is missing. >> and then you got a distinct and unique look at the young generation. in 2011, i want people to buy
your book so we will not tell the whole story. in 2011, the key is that you have a job teaching english at a school that teach the sons of the power elite to north korea. his parents have been powerful you went in there for six months as a journalist, your agenda was to report but you told them you're an english teacher. you spoke english everyday, not allowed to speak korean. that's amazing. because if you are caught, you would not be sitting here now, in all likelihood. how did you get away with it? >> as i was chasing after north
korea since 2002 it did everything you could imagine. i interviewed so many defectors and separated families from china, to thailand, all these roots. i interviewed them in the hiding place like a year after they arrived in south korea to verify how many testifies may or may not be true. so you do the research and i went to south africa remember when they qualified in the world cup, with their to try to understand who might be in the audience. it was contract workers were shipped there. the media then were reporting they were chinese actors hired by the great leader. so, i needed to understand from every aspect of the country it generally comes from the bottom class.
so trying to get to the heart of north korea. i realized in 2008 i went in for harpers to cover the philharmonic concert. you get a pr message that the government wants you to go right about. >> and everybody made is happy and well-dressed. >> it's all crafted. and that is what they want you to tell the world. but, in this case is the world's most brutal regime. but they decided to show me and i tell the world this is what north korea is, you just a pr for the regime agenda. that's why it's hard. how do i get immersed in there. i went to school pretending to
be an evangelical schoolteacher. there are different threats that i was trying to get into the there. the only one that worked out. it was years before the book was decided what i was going to do there. i just needed to get in there. finally, i wasn't try would even make it. i found out i ended up going in 2011 escorting them for three years. that university was set up by an international evangelical organization. they had promised to not path
wa--so i was pretending to be in fundamental evangelical. if it wasn't for that, i would not have gotten away from that. i have never read a bible in my life. when they were not allowed to talk about christianity, ever. >> who were these boys you are teaching? >> they were like mad, but things that were very obvious is they were really 20-year-old young man that a lot of times could be eight. that year was also your 100 for north korea. they count their calendar system different from the rest of the world.
so 100 here they're talking about the original great leader it's his 100th year. in order to celebrate, they shut down all the university and the whole country for a year. they every university student put them in construction feel, which they said is to build a prosper nation. so they were doing manual labor. then they pull up their crème de la crème, 270 of them and put these young men into the school that these four evangelical people have built. so with evangelicals around the world were funding the education of north korea's elite.
that's where ended up in this military compound which was 24/7 guarded. people were watching you 24/7. i did bring in -- and wear them around minor like necklace. you can have a laptop but i also buried the documents within a document set look like a english lesson but on page 100 the book begins. i would have to erase it every time. i wrote early in the morning and late at night. and then get rid of all that in case they go through it. >> you were living two lives. so once i lose this document what would've happened to me?
i had to have a backup on a nasty car. i hid it in the room. i knew the rooms were bonked. >> did you like your students? >> i loved them. it's complicated. i was the journalist but at the same time to be a good journalist you have to sincerely be there is a teacher. my way of surviving there, because it was unbearable to be there for multiple reasons. is completely under severe wants 24/seven is exhausting. you are always worried. one thing i remember doing is always going over what i might've said. i had to eat with the students three times a day. we had conversation to practice english but that gets private
sometimes. they might talk about their girlfriends, in the beginning they did and it was always about the great leader. they also we have no interest in girls, and these are 20-year-old boys. clearly they were lying. so at the end they would tell me about their girlfriends. this conversation you find out more about what's going on in the country. how many have televisions. they might ask me because north korea only has one channel that works in only shows the great leader programs. >> is that a good program? >> it's unbelievable what they can say. it's a déjà vu. and that's the thing. i look so bizarre to the western world.
but it's the same information being told over and over again. this is been going on not just for a year but 70 some years. there's only one channel, only one newspaper. >> to these boys know what the outside world is about? >> first of all, they did not know what the internet was. they all said they did, but they didn't. they're saying it's science and technology school, how did i know they didn't know what was, because i would ask questions. then they would say things like how many movies can you watch on your internet? can you watch five movies or ten? and i said well you can watch more than five movies on the internet.
since things like this that they don't really have the concept. but we would we have known what the internet was, it's hard to explain that thing. so how much did they know or not know, north koreans cannot travel, there's a check post between each time. education is a really possible. my students didn't know about a lot of things because they would just get information about the great leader. >> when you're for to the great leader about the contents a lot, but what about music can. >> remember thinking this when i wanted to cover the new york philharmonic. right now we saw hip-hop stars going in there to perform to
though lead of north korea. but for the average person in north korea, music is about the great leader. it's either written about the great leader, maybe a better way to think, maybe you don't think -- being played inside of church like rock 'n roll, it's kind of like that. all the music is about the great leader. any books idea is about the great leader. >> how does north korea expect to prepare itself for future of its generation of star students is learning english but they don't know anything. >> if you your citizens to be the machines for the nation, for the ideas of the great leader
which is an absolute cult leader, then you do need your citizens -- the not dumb, but all the information needs to trip. something i began noticing. when i said they see my younger in an abuse world you never make decisions on your own. >> we have one minute left. were talking about the possibility of peace which would suggest possibly reunification. this population who star students are cut off from the world, can you see the two populations reintegrating working with each other? >> i don't mean to go into the debate that's coming up coming absolutely not.
>> i mean at the people level. at the personal level. >> i think it's a rehab process. people think it's simple you, you reunifying people are happy, people who been abuse for 70 years need trauma therapy that will take another generation. i thought it is really -- the damage that has been done. >> the title of your book is without you, there is no us. it's one of the most popular songs in north korea because it's the great leader who wants everything. and without him, it's nothing. >> suki kim, thank you so much. [applause] >> that was great.
thank you. we will now move on to our debate. our motion is this, negotiations continue colorize north korea. our debate will go on three rounds and then our audience will vote to choose the winner. if all goes well, civil discourse will also win. cast your pre-debate vote. visit other browser on your phone, you will be prompted to vote for the motion, against the motion or undecided. will keep an open for a few minutes. we have you vote again after the arguments and it's the difference between the first and second vote that determines what is the winning team.
negotiatenegotiations continue r eyes the world. -- i'm sorry, there is a very smart person who said that but if any of you catch me doing that you can stand up and shout. our motion is, negotiations can do you nuclear i's north korea. let's welcome suzanne dimaggio. [applause] bonnie jenkins. [applause] and sumi perry. [applause]
, now it's time to meet the debaters. arguing for the motion, let's welcome suzanne dimaggio. [applause] suzanne, you are senior fellow, you have been leading to dramatic initiatives in places like iran and north korea for nearly 20 years. in may last year use of fillet travis facilitated some of the first discussions. something we specialize in misleading track 1.5 and diplomatic initiatives. can you tell us what is track wanted to. >> track one is official diplomacy between governments and track to his unofficial dialogue among nongovernmental participants. the risk of sounding wonky, track one coincides somewhere in
between. the mix of official and unofficial participants. >> thank you. [applause] and you have an oppressive partner in your side, bonnie jenkins. [applause] you are a nonresident senior fellow during the obama administration, you're at the state department, and ambassador, working on threats on a daily basis. you said you got into the arms control by accident. in a sentence or two how do you get into that by accident? >> mainly because i was a fellow at the department of defense at the legal office. i want my colic to a meeting and had no idea what it was about. i had no idea about these
issues. they're talking about a treaty and i thought it was cool. i've been doing it since. >> thank you. the team arguing for the motion we have the team arguing against it. please welcome sumi terry. here's senior fellow at the center for strategic studies. you're recognized as an expert on north korea. you have worked with the nst, and i see in cia. you're one of the top analyst of north korea. when you were recruited to work for the cia they said if you wanted to know what kim jong-un is for breakfast you should come work for them. did you ever get the answer to that question? >> no. but i knew his favorite food was fatty tuna.
a love of sushi and tauro. [applause] also, powerful partner, welcome mira. [applause] you are senior research scholar at yale, your areas of expertise are deterrence, nuclear strategies he recently cowrote an essay titled perception and misperception on the korean peninsula. among the misconceptions think americans might have, what tops the list? >> the biggest misperception is either the united states or north korea reads the other side signals as intended. this is often a major problem.
because there's so little diplomatic contact between the two countries and the relationship is so front, signals are harder than ever. >> did i say misconceptions? the team arguing against the motion. we go in three rounds. in the first round each debater me to believe statement. those will be five minutes each. they'll be uninterrupted. first to speak, ambassador bonnie jenkins. , ladies and gentlemen, ambassador, bonnie jenkins. [applause] >> good evening. when i was first told i had the opportunity to be this debate,
and my motion would be the negotiations can work i said of course, why not. then i said let me tell you why have that perception. i spent my life working in the area of nuclear nonproliferation arms control. spotlighmy life sitting at the e negotiating treaties, working with the delegation, drafting treaty text and making what might seem impossible, possible. finding out ways to find common interest to find a way and a process for agreement. i have been in the world of possibles. i've done research on it. my topics for my dissertation was couple why recruiters decide why or why not they want to develop nuclear weapons. how their actions play a role in the decision-making.
i found out that a very important part of this is the leader in what the leader wants to do. when a leader decides to give up that program we have examples of countries giving up nuclear weapons. we have argentina and brazil. we have south africa, all of these countries decided at some point they wanted to give up their nuclear weapons.decision g to do. there is also an agreement many that cannot happen. there were fortunately some that believed it was possible. as a result after many months we have the jcpoa, the joint
comprehensive agreements. they can happen. of course, we have one wrinkle, that is north korea. the problem is we have a history where there have been agreements on those did not work. however, were not saying you should not take account of these things. when you go into negotiations you should take into account the past and as you prepare yourself you should take that into consideration that will help you decide how to negotiate. those are not reasons not to negotiate. to think that you cannot reach a conclusion. you can never give up on diplomacy. what are the options? it wasn't that long ago. to go back to the point where
there was a lot of insecurity where two countries with nuclear weapons are facing each other, where things are being said, it's not a situation we want. we want to be at a point after all the words to finally say let's sit and talk because we think we can make a difference. we have negotiations in the meetings between north korea and south korea, we have upcoming meeting with u.s. and north korea. why were these things be happening if we didn't think it was possible. the table is set, the time is right, we've had our saber rattling and everyone to their thing, now let's step back into we need to do to make sure we can come to some agreements. understanding the past is
important. it should not prevent you from making progress in the future. for that reason i know you'll all vote for the motion that denuclearization can occur. [applause] >> thank you. our next guest will be speaking against the possibility. >> there is no bargain that can fully denuclearize north korea at the negotiating table. that's what we are arguing tonight. if our opponents can convince you of the opposite, that there's a clear deal that they would prefer over his now complete nuclear arsenal, then
you should vote for this motion and against our position. throughout the debate we ask you to keep in mind a critical definition, that's the definition of denuclearization. it is the complete verifiable, irreversible disarmament of north korea and its nuclear weapons program is defined by policymakers in the trump administration. that is the heart of what were debating. i want to make three points. north korea believes it needs nuclear weapons to survive. the united states does not have a reasonable substitute to offer north korea, and the third by chasing a pipedream, we put herself at risk. north korea believes it needs nuclear weapons to survive. the korean war ended in 1963 in tens of thousands of troops on
the peninsula. north korea invested in its conventional militaries to ensure south korea and the united states cannot invade it. since the '80s set inactive and secretive program first tested wanted 2006. it is now had nuclear weapons for over ten years. they wanted to ensure that it would never be invaded and the regime could survive. kim jong-un has invested more in this program. in the last few months he is declared them complete. and north korea survival a short period weapons or existential. a matter of survival and no
guarantee. what could the united states offer in exchange? he could offer a security guarantee, a promise it would never be invaded and the regime would never be toppled. the problem is we've offered it countless times before and have always been rejected. there was a 22005 agreement in which north korea decided to denuclearize but then they violated. in private they repeatedly told the american counterpart that u.s. security guarantees cannot be trusted. they point to examples of the united states invading iraq or libya. they disarmed them and then vibrated then. why would they accept no what they have never accepted in the
past? now that their nuclear arsenal and weapons programs complete. finally, by chasing this pipedream we risk missing the diplomatic opportunity at hand and catastrophic conflict. we can't buy what's not for sale. north korea is not selling its weapons program right now. by continuing to chase that will we allow them to continue to build nuclear weapons. . . we face two very real risks. the first we make real
concessions in exchange for a promise that his hands real at all, but the second is when the trump administration awakens from its dream, it takes us to its worst nightmares to the war on the korean peninsula. something that was real a few months ago. i want to be clear about what we are not arguing tonight. we are not in favor of force. but realistic and attainable goals. smart diplomacy over meaningful ends and to vote against this motion tonight. [applause] >> we are halfway through the round of debate. we have two teams of two fighting it out over this motion coming negotiations can
denuclearize north korea. you heard of the opening statementthe opening statementsa senior fellow at new america and usd prk -- dprk. >> i am so happy to be here. as we all add the summit, kim jong-un told south korean president moon jae-in that he was ready to give up its nuclear weapons in exchange for the united states ending the korean war formally and promising not to invade the country. they signed for the nuclear free korean peninsula and complete denuclearization that was the common goal. this turn to diplomacy is both
welcome when you consider just months ago we were on the verge of the war. of course we have seen similar language in previous agreements and previous failed attempts, but that shouldn't stop us from pursuing the biggest opportunity for diplomacy with north korea in almost 20 years. i understand the skepticism in fact i share it, but we shouldn't let the past get in the way of us trying again so when considering this evening'ss motions, i think there are three key questions we should explore. the first one is is kim jong-un ready to come in from the cold. we've seen more and hurt more than we have during his entire six-year tenure as the north korean leader. my best assessment of what is behind this unprecedented outreach is that the understands
he needs to do this in order to gain acceptance of a new strategic policy he just put forward. in my conversations with the senior officials they do not want to amass a nuclear arsenal and then to turn their attention to economic development. this follows kim jong-un's line, and that is a national policy that has gone one track, the efforts of the programming on the other track, economic development. of course what we have seen over the years, kim jong-un pursuing relentlessly advancements in the nuclear program and at a great cost to the well-being of the
north korean people. 2017 of the pivotal here for kim jong-un. that's when he completed the nuclear force in november and then reiterated again in his speech this past january. this leads me to my second question, why now. they say they now can detour into the tech from the united states which enables them to come back to the negotiating table and was an equal to the united states as an equal power. he sees decades of the rule ahead of him and he understands, he must understand that in order to maintain the family dynasty, he's got to do something to address the economic conditions in north korea and there is only one way to do that and that is through the sanctions.
the third and final question is how can we get to a successful outcome and that is the most important question. i think we need to rigorously test whether he's serious about giving up nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees iguaranteesin the development ao increase the chances for successful outcomes we should be thinking boldly. we should be thinking of what kind of comprehensive package we are going to offer to him. peace treaty, normalization of relations, security guarantees that would have to include beijing and on the economic side we need to think in addition to the relief of economic sanctions need to think about investment, economic aid as a senior advisor recently put it, senior advisers to president moon jae-in said what they want is a trump tower and mcdonald's, so surely kim
jong-un knows what it will take to get there. i would like to rack up by saying the wording of the notion is important to equalize north korea, the operative word points to the possibility if the motion was the negotiation could denuclearize will denuclearize north korea i wouldn't appear to defend that becaus this becauses we don't know if that will be the outcome. so it is possible. please keep that in mind when you cast your vote in favor of the motion and the way i look at it is a vote in favor of this motion is a vote in support of diplomacy. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, suzanne dimaggio. the motions to denuclearize north korea, that is su mi terry
at the center for strategic and international studies ladies and gentlemen, su mi terry. [applause] >> as a child growing up in south korea come in as an adult who spent almost all of my career following the north korean issues, i have to say when i saw the north korean leader, kim jong-un from actually step foot in south korea it was a moving moment. i got a little bit emotional. it was moving hi, it was moments and historic. i am happy that we are now on this path of trying to sort something out particularly since several months ago i had sleepless nights because of the talk of preventive military
strikes that have had catastrophic consequences not only for the korean peninsula but for the world. that said, ladies and gentlemen can attend the negotiations lead to denuclearization is complete irreversible, verifiable, i do not think so. i think the negotiations will lead to another agreement with north korea, sure. there's always an agreement we have many every single time they fill the part. we have the framework, bilateral agreement between the united states and north korea, we have 1999 geneva accord which they agreed to stop all long-range missile testing. we have six rounds of the party talks that led to the joint statement, 2007 joint declaration in which north korea also agreed to declare all of its nuclear weapons and disable
all of its existing nuclear facilities. but every single time it fell apart over the verification, so i don't believe the negotiations will lead to complete verifiable and irreversible. what has kim jong-un done since coming into power? he's got four out of six nuclear tests including hydrogen bomb was more powerful than the one that threatened hero sheila. 90 ballistic missile tests in six and a half years, 20 of them last year alone, three ballistic missile tests, the one in november, 2015, that showed the capability to reach over the united states and they've now declared itself a nuclear weapons power. so this is what he has been doing the completing the
program, accelerating towards it because like he and his grandfather they believe nuclear weapons is the only way to guarantee survival. he has, like his father and grandfather, has pursued this problem could cost millions of lives and billions of dollars. now he's completed it that is all of a sudden going to give it up. every time they talk about iraq and libya. we convinced him to give up its nuclear weapons programs and then we wound up overthrowing and killing him. how many times they have said she's dead, i don't want to be dead, this is the only way for us to survive. so why this risk, there's a lot
of things he wants, he wants the sanctions relief, money, food, fuel to flow into the pipeline, he wants international recognition as a nuclear weapons state. there's a lot of things that he wants but not the denuclearization of the north. often times to distinguish what do they mean by the denuclearization of north korea. there is a peace declaration woulwhat do the north koreans b? they've historically meant his denuclearization of the korean peninsula if this activity is guaranteed and that doesn't mean just the unilateral government, he's talking about south korea, about breaking the alliance relationship, getting troops out of south korea and ending over south korea and japan.
this is what he means by denuclearization for the korean peninsula. it's a long way for them and we are not going to get there. please vote for the opposite side of the motion today. [applause] that concludes round number one of the debate where the negotiations can denuclearize north korea. now we move on to round number two where the debate will address of on one another direcd takes questions from you and me the live audience here at the museum in washington, d.c.. the team arguing for the motion made up of suzanne dimaggio and bonnie jenkins we are living in a very optimistic time and they are arguing for optimism. the test showed us the oath that once seemed impossible actually can be reached. they say that they understand and share the skepticism from the other side but they don't
think that should wind u blind o the possibilities that we are in and they argue the current leader has an incentive to bring the nation into repair its economic disaster and it might be willing to trade but it has worked so hard to turn into a bargaining chip. the team against the motion, su mi terry and mira rapp-hooper say that it is defined as complete and verifiable and irreversible. they argue that they cannot conceive of a deal the united states would offer and that he would actually accept, that he and his leadership thinks that it needs the nuclear weapons in order to survive, so there is a lot dividing the two sides and a lot of it comes down to issues that relate to matters of trust, incentives, possibilities, and
we would like to work through them one at a time but i would like to go first to this question of trust that has been brought up. can he be trusted? and also we heard counterargument that they have little reason to trust us being the united states, shouldn't identify as the moderator from the united states. sorry, it is an old habit. but we do to you first come of bonnibonnie jenkins, somebody involved in these negotiations. the issue of trust where it applies to north korea and moonm jong-un, can he be trusted? >> trust is important and when you talk about negotiating with someone, you want to believe you can trust, but you don't have to trust someone simply to have negotiations. you have negotiations because they want to come to a conclusion and that's why you have the verification because you want to make sure that whatever agreements are made
that the other side will do it. we have had numerous negotiations with the soviet union and russia. there were times we didn't necessarily trust them but we still came to an agreement on arms control issues and nuclear issues and we had a verification regime so we were still able to make it happen. so of course you want to have trust, but if there is an important issue that you want to work on reducing the nuclear weapons you figure out how to make it happen and then verify. >> mira rapp-hooper. >> i agree you don't necessarily have to have trust to negotiate with an adversary. i don't actually think that trust is the crux of the argument today. what we are suggesting at least on the north korean side is that we have not seen in education of complete nuclear disarmament.
we've certainly seen an interest in negotiations and that's an idea we very much support. we've seen an interest in kim jong-un getting sanctions in taking meaningful concessions we could verify. but when it comes down to the fundamental question of denuclearization is within just a matter of trust and we are the arguing we haven't seen that. >> would you like to jump in? >> sure. >> sure. it's not a question of trust and you're sittinyour sitting down n adversary that approaches ms. trust but verify, and that is the approach we should be taking with the north koreans and we put it on when we pursued the deal. yes the regime stability provided that but let's think ahead in terms of the economic
troubles they are only going to worsen. the situation isn't going to improve and that will become more of a liability and threat to his regime stability so in my talks with them they are looking ahead to the years ahead where that is going to harm them saido that is the motivation. >> i want to explore the point you made about the incentive that i would like to devote a little bit of time to that and come back to that later and just stay on this question because you are arguing also that they've made agreements and they've never lived up to them and i think that is where this question of trust comes in so to stay on that point. it's been absolutely, they don't trust us either. when the administration came in and stated that perspective they
said we disimply get it, you ara democracy. now we look at the trump administration. how can the north koreans trust us and the the same goes for uso them because of the agreement so that we do have with them and in every time it fell apart the verification and susannah talked about verify that that is the problem we were not able to verify every single time the discussions fell apart over the verification and one last point just because he's so popular now after diplomacy, can we not forget a year and a half ago this is the guy that killed his half brother using chemical weapons? [applause] >> we can all agree that he is a bad guy. i don't think that there is any disagreement about him being bad and not trustful.
i think that it's a given. i think the point here is that you have to think about how much is that going to weigh in on what you want to do now. if do you want to say no to a possibility to denuclearize or say it didn't happen in the past, you are a bad guy. you try to find a way to get rid of the nuclear weapons and find a way to make it a lot more peaceful. things we can try to do or do you want to say let's sit down and think about how we can try to make the situation. does this mean your site as sits optimism or is that going too far? >> what you have heard a lot of people say is optimism but be careful if you have to be optimistic you don't want to
walk in with failure you have to be somewhat optimistic if you are going to have him individual or another country. >> he wanted them to have optimism. we are talking about the national security adviser. optimistic they are going to get denuclearization and then they don't get that and then what's going to happen. part of the reason we focused the debate we have today is irreversible is precisely the definition the administration is using most sincerely reiterated
today that secretary of state colin for not only the complete disarmament of the nuclear arsenal the chemical and biological arsenal as well. the complete dismantlement of all of its wmd programs and our concern is if we go to the negotiation with this as a an ed objective and they feel burned but immediately tracks back into thinking that the preventive war with mike pompeo now as the secretary of state. >> i want to clarify i am not arguing for optimism, i am arguing for pragmatism and as the saying goes you make peace with your enemies and no one here is saying by any means that he's an honorable guy but i also want to bring to the table don't forget that he met kim jong-un just a month ago in pyongyang,
rather remarkable, and he said that he discussed extensively with kim jong-un what complete verifiable irreversible denuclearization would be. he then reported that he was prepared to lay out a map to help us achieve it so here we have the cia director who has actually heard it from the horse's mouth that he understands what the denuclearization is and he talked to him extensively. i don't understand experts who are saying we should drop the goal of denuclearization when the north koreans themselves are saying that they are ready to discuss it now. that doesn't make sense to me. >> with me add to this before the other side responds, there is another side coming from the south koreans who seem to have the highest stakes in this of anybody and i want to quote
something from the foreign affairs written by a special adviser to the south korean president. he wrote after attending all three summits between the two koreas in 2007 and 2018, i believe the latest represents progress and lays the groundwork for lasting peace. he is not naïve but what is your response to that? >> he is naïve i'm sorry. this is a foreign affairs article that they stepped back from because he's a little too ahead of this comes of it is my opinion on that. i want to reiterate -- >> all of that excitement is just naïveté. >> e. is forward enough on this business and our perspective, they actually went out and said this today and yesterday and i just want to point out that
north koreans never said they are going to unilaterally disarm north korea. they talked about the peninsula commitment to denuclearize it continually evolve south korea. i have no problem with engagement in the negotiations and i believe the summit would be successful is because the incentive to make sure that it goes well t but the point is afterwards what would happen after this initial meeting for the need for this is what we are talking about. >> your opponent is saying that north korea has no incentive whatsoever to give up to their r weapons and you're presenting them on the idea that he wants to step out into the world and have something to trade now, 30 or 40 more seconds on that point and then the opponents
responses. >> believe me i'm not saying that this is going to happen overnight even under the best circumstances. what i'm saying is the process could be put in place that could lead t to the eventual goal. a lot of things would happen before we get there it would have to be action for action on want of a because there is so much mistrust for example )-right-paren they stopped testing their weapons. the next thing should be that we gave to they stop advancing their weapons and that would include verification and so forth. so i think if kim jong-un isn't serious, we will know soon enough once we get to that stage if he doesn't let them and we all know and if he does we want. what i don't understand is why would he take this risk right now? he has this nuclear program that theoretically can show where we are heading right now. he could just hunker down, sit
there and continue life as it is without any backlash. so something is motivating him and i think that they've made the calculation that without some drastic changes in their economic conditions, that regime will fall. >> and you're saying despite the opponents saying they would never give up because that is extensional, but as a price paid for the benefit that url planning. >> is the ultimate bargaining chip and again it would be a process a lot of things to happen. ththat have to happen. the next security guarantees with the chief among them and include fishing. >> they are presenting an incentive that would make it worth it. >> this is an important argument to engage because we are not disagreeing that it would play a role coming to the negotiating table. we are simply arguing that on the basis of the economic
incentive they are not prepared to fully disarm. in the opening statement he made the point has claimed victory already with his nuclear arsenal and in the last several months, he pointed to the fact that they now have a nuclear deterrent to ensure its own survival to pursue other goals as a result. the economic health and stability is one of those secondary goals that he would like to pursue over and above his survival which he is now guaranteed so i don't think it should surprise us that he feels he can come to the negotiating table from the position of the regime security guarantees hoping to make it stronger still by improving the situation and by the partners who pointed to several statements in the opening statement that the nuclear weapons program will not keep the economy up and running.
these are things he has to think about now that he has a bargaining chip. his negotiating position has peaked right now he can come to the table with confidence. one of the most important things for them is to be able to come to the table and say we are coming here as an equal on equal footing. that's very important. >> let me bring in your partner on this point, the opponents are saying basically the one thing that gives them security and power in the world he would never give away because it is worth too much and they would also cite the model again they used that against your side of the opponents saying that they've proven to people that he shouldn't trust the united
states. to take on this incentive question including the economic incentive. >> i don't really understand how that is going to be a problem in terms for the weekend reach an agreement on denuclearization. i'm still not understanding why that is a threat or why that is a problem so i need to have that better clarified. >> to your point of there would be a deal. they are coming in from maximum pressure but they are coming in and they would offer a deal. they couldn't offer a deal because thinking walk away from this as a sort of deal is going to be good for america like no other predecessor, they do
nothing to protect japan and south korea so they are saying if you complete the program they are going to offer a deal but it isn't a full completes denuclearization of the korean peninsula. >> that we don'but we don't knod the fact is we haven't even started the negotiation. what they discussed is interesting today it seems to me they have agreed what is going to be on the agenda and i want to come back to this question why would they take this risk now if he wasn't ready to move forward on a process. if things failed you can imagine it would strengthen the hands of the people calling for military strikes so it's not just the economic incentive, it's also the possibility of military strikes against north korea
motivating him. >> right after they responded >> right after they responded with a ticket to questions from the audience and the way that works is if you raise your hand i will call on you and if you can stand up to people in the upper tiers i won't be able to call on you because i can't see you but if you can stand in faith for a microphone into a focused question. mira rapp-hooper, the floor is yours. i want to weigh in on the question of why now and apply under the type of pressure that he's been facing. in addition to the fact that he faced the threat of military strength, he now also faces the possibility of being able to enter negotiations and drag them out so this is part of the reason we are stressing that dia anita denuclearization isn't a feasible goal. if he comes back to the table and makes modest concessions and holds it out as a goal that he never intends to make good on
him he can reduce the risk and begin to get economic benefits without ever making good on that promise. >> so assuming that he will fool around a bottle that he will bul never really mean it? >> that is as history would suggest. >> we have to keep in mind this isn't going to be something that happens overnight. keep in mind that this is going to take a while. this isn't going to be something that is trump is going to go there and make an agreement and go home and it's going to take a wider regardless and it's wife of regardless and it's important for people to understand it's going to be a process that's going to take time and we can't at this point predicts that that's going to happen. >> we are not at that point that we can say that is specifically going to happen. >> the prediction i
>> the prediction is he will never give it up so you're saying that's ridiculous. >> we can't make that assumption at this point. we don't have enough to say you you're basing all of your arguments on what happened in the past, and i understand why he would do that but in the world of the negotiation and diplomacy is about meeting with the other people to have a resolution. it's obviously been said he wants complete denuclearization. we are not going to say we want this discussion. we are going to have that discussion. he could even ask for a grand bargain, things that the peace treaty and we also talk about what this means off the north korean peninsula but i do think one issue that hasn't come up
this impossible right now i work in the intelligence community and i can tell you we don't know how many weapons they have and we don't know where they are. there are thousands and thousands of underground tunnels and it's goo it could be hard tn verify. it's been used and that is what we are dealing with. it might be a little easier to verify. >> [inaudible] we are not going to get that unless we have a negotiation and we can't say at this point we are never going to be able to find it and it's not going to work. you have to have the discussion didn't have the people in there and we don't have that right now. >> this is an essential point. in the opening statement we called for the negotiations and arms control and getting our
arms around these programs we are responding to the notion as instructed which is kennedy denuclearized north korea, and it is in the denuclearization that we are saying no. they are saying they are ready to discuss it. with negotiator with into a negotiation, any negotiation, step back from the position that they are ready to discuss? of course we are going to go in with a maximum position. it would be crazy not to. what i'm saying is the united states has done a poor job over the years of reading the north koreans. a lot of times you just hear their pronouncements and understand what they are trying to do. all i'm saying it's any good negotiator is going to go into this like a tiger, see that the north koreans, kim jong-un
himself disgusted with the secretary of state. why do we go in and give that up it doesn't make sense to me. >> if you're going to argue that it's okay if you're going to have the inspectors, that is part of the process of denuclearization. you want inspectors. i want to go back to my optimism point. i was cautious optimism because there is a history of working in the country. you go in there but you are cautiously careful about what you do and say because you know their history. >> if you could stand up and tell us your name and ask a
question. >> one of the things we heard i don't think anyone in the room would probably trust this guy but what about reachable actors for south korea, japan, china was roll made a play in denuclearized in the korean peninsula? >> let me take that. >> there's no question any agreement that we come to whether it is arms control over the denuclearization goal requires authors south korea is essential, china inessential and ultimately if we put in place the arms control regime that would rely on the agency as to do those inspections but there's
another side to this international claim which is to realize every country is having a deep interest in the issue and has already staked out its bargaining position. one example of this is china not going to be represented at the summit in just a few feet but certainly made its feelings known when he visited beijing a few weeks ago and in response to the visit to beijing, the chinese have already promised to begin letting guestworkers back into china. that is before kim jong-un has done anything. the chinese have already begun to grant economic release a part of what we are calling for here is realistic goals that all of these international actors can get behind because if we leave it to lofty and everybody gets to define it for themselves and move the pressure and incentives as they see fit in relation to
something tangible that we can all agree to definitively. >> i'm glad you've raised this question because i want to give special attention to south korea. we wouldn't be here without precedent moon jae-in and his diplomacy. we must give a great deal of credit. he read the situation well and offered an attractive offramp for the john chang -- peon yang olympics -- the north koreans are now saying that as a major part of the sign. he also told me -- kim johg-il they understand the process and we have control over it and unless and until they do verifiable steps towards the
denuclearization, we don't have to do anything. this is and china will play, this is something that the professionals do. people who work in the negotiations and in the verification. this isn't something we have to give away before we get to the table and certainly without it being verified. >> another question. >> does the north have enough in the way of the conventional firepower to kind o of give up their ultimate bargaining chip without giving up all of their chips? >> of course they have a conventional four, 14 conventional tools fueled within 50 seconds that's why i said that preventive war wasn't catastrophic so to south korea. north korea basically lost the rivalry and every possible thing a nuclear weapon is the only thing that they have over south
korea. >> [inaudible] if i understand your question, until north korea had a reliable nuclear deterrent that the u.s. military assessed that the united states and south korea with wayne any war with north korea. >> even without the u.s. military, they are capable enough. [inaudible] what's interesting is for the first time they put forth the possibility of discussing the reduction of the conventional forces, too, which is in testing. we never heard him say that thet before. another step, a positive step that i see why this team is different as they are bringing peace to the table they have not
before. >> they develop intercontinental ballistic missiles, so it's not about having something over south korea. i think the goal was against the united states. >> my name is christine and this doubles down on optimism it seems like a commonsense solution icommon sensesolution o denuclearized. has that offer been on the table anand a good word to you think that they would trust that and both sides would move to do verifiable? >> i'm glad you asked that question because that is the one i wanted to get to. >> in the past when they talked about denuclearization, this is what they meant. they had times a very expansive definition and they are not saying that now because they
know that it's a nonstarter and it's another signal that this could be serious and why he should take the risk of engaging with them, it is a small risk and try to get what we can out of it. the fact that they are stepping back from demanding we remove our troops and stepping back from saying we have to denuclearized, all these things if they had been saying that i would be the first to say look, they are not serious. let's cut this off right now, but they are not saying that, they are saying the opposite. >> i think they realized that's probably not going to happen anytime soon and it's part of a bigger argument. >> talking about things on the table, they did say the weapons
were not targeting south korea and the u.s.. >> i will return to this i don't want to ask her to repeat herself again but that is the fact north korea always good for the denuclearization of the entire peninsula. and that is the language that appeared in the joint statement between north and south korea just last weekend when they say the denuclearization of the entire peninsula, they mean the end to the u.s. alliance with south korea and the removal of the troops on the peninsula. -- >> that i >> that is not true. how can you say that. they haven't said it this time. but what they are saying is that it's moving to the nuclear and strategic assets from south korea not on the troops. >> we don't have any nuclear assets. so until they have a lock.
>> i think i might be wrong but the audience optimism was why not give all. why not, why should they not agree to pull out the troops and remove the nuclear umbrella if that would be the price of getting him to give up his -- >> asking about american nuclear, denuclearization. the denuclearization question is a much broader question about the global s-sierra movement in the effort to get to the zero nuclear weapons. something certainly president obama was committed to in theory so we do not see see it for yoo read it as an objective in this administration. so, i wouldn't suggest that is on the table right now from the american perspective, but also requires consideration of several other countries. when it comes to the question of removing the troops in the peninsula, the question comes
down to whether we have removed all remaining elements of the north korean threat. if the united states were to agree to end the alliance with south korea and remove its 28,000 troops from the peninsula it could only do that under the conditions where they were short south korea were secure. that is just the denuclearization but that is the inability to end the self conventionally into an agreement to denuclearized. >> they are not demanding the removal of u.s. troops from the peninsula. in fact they said the opposite, they accepted it. that is our president seems to be the most interested in removing the troops that we just learned yesterday who seems more interested in dealing death and the north koreans. let's not make up facts. let's follow what they are
saying. let's bring them to the table and hold them to account by all means, but let's pursue this to the fullest extent. [applause] your applause can be a robust like that or even more so. [laughter] >> if you could tell us your name please. >> i think everyone acknowledged china has the most influence by far and yet we've also seen china has also been condemning north korea so given that they have not been able to denuclearized north korea, how can we then cannot the same table? >> the primary goal hasn't been the denuclearization it's been stability. keep that in mind. that's what they are motivated by. they don't want to collapse or
want refugees flooding their borders. they certainly don't want u.s. troops on their border which would happen if north korea collapsed. but the point is let's keep things in mind. they have done a much better job of bringing tougher sanctions against north korea and enforcing the sanctions. not perfect, but the reasons we are at this point because the sanctions are a biting. second, in the resolution of this issue, china is going to play one of the key roles because in terms of security guarantees, who do you think is going to be the guarantor for north korean security? it is going to be beijing. >> do you think the role strengthens your argument in this debate? >> absolutely. i think at the end of the day, the chinese would like to see this problem go away. they would not like to see north korea go away, they don't necessarily want to see kim jong-un go away because that is the buffer between us and them. they would like to see kim
jong-un stay, but the tensions reduced and certainly if kim jong-un gets rid of the nuclear program, i think china would step up to the plate for the security. >> with the opposing sides like to respond? >> you can make an opposing argument that is as she said, the chinese have always been more interested in stability on the korean peninsula then denuclearization. under severe threat from the trump administration they have put more pressure this year. they put more sanctions in place and those started but they are looking for a next is to be in the position they can start to take some of the pressure off and they start to do that already. >> in the preemptive fights that is the last thing they want. >> i'm also not sure how far
they want to get ahead of the process. they have been meeting and that is good but i don't know how far they would want to get into the negotiation with what's going to happen with the u.s. and north korea and you are kind of making the case they are already giving the states that they have not yet. this is the third time that we are initiating this and there's a lot in this administration that you can get without trying to bias the audience with what is impossible, [inaudible]
>> my question is in the '90s you had a lot of people starving to think millions of people died because of sanctions, actions on the part of the community to get them to the table and if it happened again. >> my question with this run-on sentence [inaudible] is it moral to use these things as a bargaining chip in the position he thinks he's going to die if he gets rid of this its nuclear deterrent so he will hold onto that? is it moral to do that when we failed millions of people died can we not try to change our assumptions coming in to something else? that would be my question.
>> i don't mean to be decisive in any way. but can you boil the question down to one sentence? >> we don't have much time left actually we are out of time. >> my question is is it okay when you've been wrong twice to assume you are going to be right the third time when there are millions of lives at stake in something like this and that is where china -- >> i'm going to pass this question because i want to get to one last question. right in the middle of. >> from both sides they seem to be very optimistic going into
these negotiations. what are each side choices of leverage going to be and what are thei the weaknesses and blid spots? >> very briefly. the incentive is our security guarantees, peace treaty, normalization, bringing them in from the cold, the economic pa part. the liabilities and i'm going to be very frank i think our administration designated the state department. can we carry out such complex negotiations. hopefully he will build up and bring back swagger as he says and i have to say i think they see an opportunity in donald trump. they see someone that is eager to cut a deal at someone that has wavered on a lie and is. they see someone that doesn't give a hoot about human rights so they don't expect anything there. maybe in their mind along with all the things i said they've
also said this is the u.s. president for us, let's do this. they want to do a deal with this president. in february, 2017 day at a summit they had been thinking about for a long time and planning it. >> i would add to what was said as the situation and what we do with iran and also the recent posture review where we committed to building more weapons. i will say despite all that, he still wants to talk and are saying things that people are so ibefore so inlight of all of thl
wants to have a conversation if we can do this in the negotiation. >> i agree with everything said. they've been thinking about this a long time. they've completed the program pm and they are walking into the amazing thing and they are in a position of strength. they are going to offer something that will sound good to the administration that will come back later and this is the stereo that we are moving again but at the end of the day they cannot verify there is no deal and that is the hard fact of it. >> i would very much agree the greatest strength is its negotiating position that it's been playing for the last year. it's completed the nuclear arsenal and increasingly has south korea and china on its side because of our president's bad behavior. president's bad behavior. and the primary weakness is desired to deal with an ill preparedness, but they are going to fall for the deal that is not good for the united states or
the world because it is looking so much to score the winning. but also i will_strengthen the u.s. side which is the fact for all the state department understaffed we still have extraordinary civil service staffing and trying to staff the summit to prepare as best they possibly can. [applause] >> that concludes round number two of the debate. [applause] now we move on to round three, closing statements by each and there will be two minutes each speaking first for the motion of the ambassador from a nonresident senior fellow at the brookings institution and former state department official. >> i hope you all enjoyed the debate. i want to say one thing i did not talk about is i was in the air force and navy reserve and during my time i did one of
those exercises. i went to south korea and i did one of the military exercises with them. one that north korea is concerned about. it was a great experience and there was a lot of great south koreans, made some great friends and it was a big exercise all in the south korean military involved. but i will say that it's like the funding we had and the friends that we need to, none of us want that to be a reality. none of us want to say that this is something that we have to be very worried about and anything we are practicing we have to do. we shouldn't do anything possible to try to bring peace to the region and to do everything possible to negotiate whenever we have a chance to take every opportunity to try to find a way to denuclearize the korean peninsula and find a way that we can reduce the petitions
and we don't have to worry about a nuclear exchange or any other kind of war in the peninsula. peninsula. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, bonnie jenkins. the next speaker will be making closing statements, former cia analyst and former senior at the strategic and international studies. >> my paternal grandparents came from north korea when they broke out and never made it back. so they're lifelong wish wa theo see those separated parents and siblings into the unification and peace on the peninsula. unfortunately both of them passed away without seeing either. we are asking you to vote for our side of the motion, not because we don't hope for this but because we do. suzanne said we need to pay attention to what they are saying, so i brought something